Sunil Narine v Terrence Hinds Terrence Hinds
| Jurisdiction | Trinidad & Tobago |
| Judge | Mr. Justice R. Rahim |
| Judgment Date | 30 June 2022 |
| Neutral Citation | TT 2022 HC 150 |
| Docket Number | Claim No. CV2021-04600 |
| Court | High Court (Trinidad and Tobago) |
the Honourable
Mr. Justice R. Rahim
Claim No. CV2021-04600
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
Claimant: Mr. R. Boodoosingh
Defendant: Mr. R. Jaggasar
On June 10, 2022 the court dismissed the application of the Claimants for an interim injunction. These are the reasons for the decision.
The case as pleaded is that the Claimants were tenants of the Defendant having entered into an unregistered tenancy agreement dated July 1, 2020 for a period of five (5) years with a first option to renew for three years and a subsequent option to renew for two years. The premises were rented for the operation of a bar and rent was set at five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) for the first month from July 1, 2020 to July 31, 2020. The agreed monthly rents as pleaded were as follows:
-
i. August 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020, eleven thousand dollars ($11,000.00).
-
ii. January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2021, thirteen thousand dollars ($13,000.00).
-
iii. January 1, 2022 to December 31, 2022, fourteen thousand ($14,000.00).
-
iv. January 1, 2023 to December 31, 2023, (erroneously pleaded as January 31, 2023), fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000.00).
-
v. January 1, 2024 (erroneously pleaded as January 1, 2020) to December 31, 2024, fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000.00).
The agreement provided that should the option to renew be exercised the monthly rent would not exceed seventeen thousand dollars ($17,000.00). The tenants were responsible for paying the electricity rates but the Landlord would contribute one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) to each bill. Electricity is billed every other month. They were also to pay water rates and there were other standard covenants to be performed on their part.
Specifically, the parties agreed that the Tenants would undertake repairs and the cost would be offset against a part of the monthly rent provided that the bills for the repairs were provided to the Landlord. Further, they agreed that the Landlord would pay by way of an offset at least one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) per month. Amongst the other covenants there was one for re-entry for non-payment of rent for seven (7) days and breach of any of the covenants. The clause provided for the Landlord to remove the belongings of the Tenants placing them outside the demised premises without liability on his part save in the event of negligence.
The pleaded case of the Claimants further set out that for the period August 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020 rent was paid in the sum of eleven thousand dollars ($11,000.00) per month as agreed but there was a monthly set off of five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) per month as allegedly agreed in clause 7 of the agreement.
Due to the adverse effects of the pandemic and the closure of bars, the parties entered into a partly verbal and partly written agreement for the payment of six thousand dollars ($6,000.00) per month for six (6) months from December 5, 2020. It was pleaded that the subsequent agreement effectively and validly altered the said tenancy agreement. Further, that starting in May 2021 the Defendant accepted monthly rent in the sum of two thousand, five hundred dollars ($2,500.00) and three thousand dollars ($3,000.00). Oddly enough, the months for which these sums were “accepted” are not set out suffice to say that it is pleaded that same is reflected in a receipt dated July 2, 2021. It is also pleaded that the Claimants agreed to assist with the payment of the arrears of the T&TEC and WASA bills. This is despite the fact that it was pleaded that they were obligated to pay same as set out in the tenancy agreement.
The Claimants also aver that extensive repairs were done by them.
On November 23, 2021, the Defendant's Attorney wrote to the Second-named Claimant demanding arrears of rent for August 2020 to November 2021 in the sum of one hundred and ten thousand dollars ($110,000.00). The Attorney for the Claimants asked for time to respond but on the weekend of December 18, 2021, a Bailiff was sent by the Defendant to collect the arrears or levy on the goods for the arrears. There is no pleading that the Claimant surrendered the keys to the bar to the Bailiff, however, it is pleaded that the bar has been closed for some time due to Corona virus and that “the Defendant is encouraging the Claimants to open same to be able to levy on the goods of the Claimant” (see paragraph 17 of the Statement of Case).
Finally, it is pleaded that the Defendant has been refusing to accept the monthly rent of six thousand dollars ($6,000.00).
The Claimant sought declarations that the tenancy agreement was validly varied, that repairs were done to the demised premises and that the Defendant still owes the Claimants for such repairs. An injunction was also sought as part of the relief to prevent the Defendant from levying on the goods of the Claimants, an injunction preventing the Defendant from harassing the Claimants or disrupting the business and restraining the Defendant from entering the premises for the purpose of evicting the Claimants.
The Defendant has pleaded that the Claimants have admitted breaking the terms of the tenancy agreement and to owing substantial sums. He pleads that at the time of signing the tenancy agreement the restrictions on bars and the effects of the pandemic lock down was well-known hence, the staggering of the rental sums. That the Claimants have had exclusive uninterrupted possession of the bar since July 2020. That the Claimants chose to pay how much they saw fit per month in breach of the agreement resulting in arrears of one hundred and twenty-six thousand, five hundred dollars ($126,500.00).
That the Attorney for the Claimant asked the Attorney for the Defendant to hold his hand...
To continue reading
Request your trial